Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tactic?

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

View Poll Results: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tactic?

Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Originally Posted by ChrisL

His foreign policies have been absolutely disastrous.

I support Obama's hawk policy. I figure it's thanks largely to Hillary. Qaddafi was a scumbag piece of garbage whose entire family abused their servants and squandered the nation's wealth for over 40 years.

Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Originally Posted by ecofarm

I support Obama's hawk policy. I figure it's thanks largely to Hillary. Qaddafi was a scumbag piece of garbage whose entire family abused their servants and squandered the nation's wealth for over 40 years.

What about his little "talks" with Ahmadinejad? He certainly isn't taking a hard line approach in a lot instances, and I don't think his foreign policies have proven to be successful at all. Besides, we can't fix those countries. It's only a matter of time before there is another problem. A lot of them are just lost causes IMO, and I also think that in a lot of cases, the citizens of those countries should be the ones to overthrow their dictators if that's what they want.

Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Originally Posted by ChrisL

What about his little "talks" with Ahmadinejad? He certainly isn't taking a hard line approach in a lot instances, and I don't think his foreign policies have proven to be successful at all. Besides, we can't fix those countries. It's only a matter of time before there is another problem. A lot of them are just lost causes IMO, and I also think that in a lot of cases, the citizens of those countries should be the ones to overthrow their dictators if that's what they want.

After the whole bowing thing, it's been pretty good. I don't see a problem with offering to talk to the Iranian regime, there's really no reason to ever completely cut off the opportunity for bi-lateral agreement and movement forward.

Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Originally Posted by ecofarm

After the whole bowing thing, it's been pretty good. I don't see a problem with offering to talk to the Iranian regime, there's really no reason to ever completely cut off the opportunity for bi-lateral agreement and movement forward.

I think they've proven time and time again that "talking" is not what they want to do. Does anyone REALLY know what Iran wants?

Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Originally Posted by ChrisL

His foreign policies have been absolutely disastrous.

I think so too, but probably not for the same reason. I believe his foreign policies have been disastrous because they first belonged to Bush, and Obama carried on with them, despite promising not to. We've still had troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 4 years, although Obama promised to end the wars immediately. Gitmo is still stuffed with prisoners who have had no trials or legal representation, although Obama promised to immediately shut it down. And tenants of Bush's Patriot Act are still being used, although Obama stated that the USA should not be invading the privacy of US citizens without probable cause. (And yes, I know Obama-the-green as senator voted for it.)

Re: Is Obama's Public Support of the Syrian Rebels a Diversionary Foreign Policy Tact

Originally Posted by DiAnna

I think so too, but probably not for the same reason. I believe his foreign policies have been disastrous because they first belonged to Bush, and Obama carried on with them, despite promising not to. We've still had troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 4 years, although Obama promised to end the wars immediately. Gitmo is still stuffed with prisoners who have had no trials or legal representation, although Obama promised to immediately shut it down. And tenants of Bush's Patriot Act are still being used, although Obama stated that the USA should not be invading the privacy of US citizens without probable cause. (And yes, I know Obama-the-green as senator voted for it.)

I didn't vote for Obama, and I don't necessarily agree with the things that he touted during his campaign, but I am so tired of politicians and they empty promises.